>This has nothing to do with firearms.
Way to completely miss the point. That's an analogy that explains that manufacturers can't reasonably be held responsible for the actions of independent consumers. The manufacturer didn't make that decision, the consumer did.
Now you can argue that the manufacturer was manipulative in effort to achieve greater profit, and thus has partial liability, but do we collectively feel as angry at Facebook for all the suicides that were influenced from deliberate psychological manipulation campaigns the company performed to shift people's feelings? If so, where's the outrage?
Sacklers are an easy target because people hold bias against "old rich white conservatives". I hear more people complaining about this than I hear complaining about 3M & DuPont, who have managed to put small amounts of a known carcinogen in the bloodstream of about 99.9% of the population of the entire planet with PFOA/PFOS in Teflon & related chemicals, and then proceeded to basically change 1 atom in the molecule and create an entirely new product that thus far appears to be identically harmful (GenX) after PFOA was banned - and spun off a holding company to sell that product to completely shield themselves from legal culpability.
Where's the outrage at that? Statistically speaking, DuPont harmed you, the Sacklers didn't. Why the popular anger at one and popular indifference towards the other?
Answer: people are stupid. Stupid doctors trusted an untrustworthy company. Stupid patients trusted their stupid doctors. They're mad at themselves for falling for something that dumb. Also so stupid that many who were harmed by DuPont but not harmed by the Sacklers don't even realize that fact.